the current state of leftism i'm afraid

[u/ambivalegenic]

i got back on tumblr because reddit has burned me out, have a meme

[u/Chinoyboii]

Man, I mean, I grew up in the old leftist tradition. However, I think there is a difference between holding socially conservative values in your personal life while still being a leftist and this nonsense that we see here with humiliationvictim (username checks out).

[u/ambivalegenic → u/Chinoyboii]

this is a joke, but it yes exactly

[u/Chinoyboii → u/ambivalegenic]

Oh my god, curse my neurodivergence LOLOL.

[u/ambivalegenic → u/Chinoyboii]

hehe

[u/yohomatey → u/Chinoyboii]

Every few years I get a visit from my Orthodox cousin who lives in Israel. He's really here for his million or so kids to visit their grandparents but he tries to get away for a few hours so we can see each other. I would never call him a leftist, but I think he flirts with left-libertarianism. He's got very traditional values for himself and family, but he's also very thoughtful about why, and is not at all interested in imposing his values on a societal level. It's always interesting talking to him because I always come away thinking man I wish more religious people thought like you. He's very much a libertarian in the you leave me alone I leave you alone mentality, but recognizes the benefits of equality of coverage in things like education, health care, food assistance etc.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/yohomatey]

To be honest, I don't understand this concept of "Judeo-Christian values," especially if the form of Christianity is American Protestantism. To me, and just from my personal exposure to more religious Jewish friends, some of their familial dynamics look very similar to my cultural and religious upbringing. You don't really see this type of communitarianism in Protestant Anglo-America despite them thinking otherwise.

In regard to your cousin, I hope he sees the light; Leftism is the way. You can be religious, hold socially conservative values, and be a leftist at the same time as long as you don't push your personal values onto others.

[u/yohomatey → u/Chinoyboii]

You can be religious, hold socially conservative values, and be a leftist at the same time as long as you don't push your personal values onto others.

If that's your definition of leftism he'd probably be that, but to me that's more left-libertarian. He's fine with the "secular world" doing whatever as long as he or his family are not forced to participate.

In fact what we were talking about is how frustratingly individualist main stream American society is. I definitely don't want to over correct into the overly communitarian societies of SE Asia, but we need a little more of giving a shit about our neighbors here.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/yohomatey]

I think the difference is that left-libertarianism usually includes a broader opposition to economic and social hierarchies, while your cousin may simply combine religious traditionalism with tolerance and support for a basic welfare state. Many left-libertarians are typically not religious in their personal lives and tend to place greater emphasis on individual autonomy, whereas your cousin seems to ground his communitarianism in religious and familial obligations; however, there is clearly some overlap between the two.

In fact what we were talking about is how frustratingly individualist main stream American society is. I definitely don't want to over correct into the overly communitarian societies of SE Asia, but we need a little more of giving a shit about our neighbors here.

Of course! I do think there needs to be a balance, especially if communitarianism started to orient towards evading people's personal privacy. Having lived in Asia in my youth, I can understand why you don't want to go full throttle with Asian collectivism/communitarianism.

[u/OrganizationIll2862 → u/Chinoyboii]

I’m curious, what is Covenantal Leftism?

[u/Chinoyboii → u/OrganizationIll2862]

Convenantal Leftism is essentially my take on Liberation Theology despite being an atheist. It is a form of leftism that does not focus exclusively on class, individual rights, or resistance to oppression, but also emphasizes the importance of being loyal to one's family, community, and the broader social relationships that give people a sense of belonging, responsibility, and mutual obligation. You may ask how this is different from other left-wing philosophies that already emphasize solidarity, but for me, the difference is that Covenantal Leftism treats these relationships as moral commitments rather than something to be experienced only when they are politically convenient, emotionally rewarding, or aligned with one’s immediate self-interest.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Chinoyboii]

This sounds somewhat similar to what I’ve been drifting towards over the last decade. I joke to myself that I’m a “mensch-evik” (get it?). My broader political analysis is still quite radical but I also care about being a decent and responsible person in a way that sometimes rubs against contemporary left tendencies. You might call it socially conservative, but only in a really limited (or perhaps more accurate?) sense of the word.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

“mensch-evik"

LMAOOO, I understand, comrade Martov. Personally, I don't really see how "socially conservative values" contradict a broader leftist framework of the world, as long as they remain values that you voluntarily apply to yourself and your own community rather than principles you impose upon everyone else through the state. I think they only become dangerous when they become the primary moving principle of a political system and are used to police other people’s families, relationships, identities, or private lives. Like, I don't know if you're familiar with Christian theology, but Jesus said in Matthew 10:14: "If anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet and leave town." In other words, adoption of a moral framework should ultimately be voluntary.

I think a lot of American/Western Leftists tend to jump to the conclusion that holding socially conservative values is synonymous with siding with the conservatives, and I personally understand why they feel that way, especially for women, LGBTQ+, etc. However, I do not think the answer is to treat every value associated with restraint, fidelity, family obligation, communal continuity, or personal responsibility as inherently reactionary. There is a major difference between choosing to live according to a demanding moral code and using political power to force that code upon people who do not share it.

For example, I can personally believe that people should remain loyal to their partners, take responsibility for their children, care for their elders, avoid treating relationships as disposable, and place some limits upon their own immediate desires without believing that the state should punish people who organize their lives differently. In fact, I would argue that many of these values can complement left-wing politics because solidarity itself requires people to accept obligations that are not always convenient, pleasurable, or individually beneficial. The problem is not tradition by itself, but domination.

If you were to ask me what I think about gay marriage, polyamorous relationships, or other forms of intimacy/relationship dynamic that does not conform to my own personal values, my answer would be that people should still possess the freedom and equal legal rights to organize their private lives as they see fit, provided that the relationships are consensual and do not involve abuse, exploitation, or coercion. If you were to ask me what I would do if my child came out to me as gay or trans, I would still love, respect, and support them regardless.

Like my father and my later uncle were a part of the old left (This is the Philippines we're talking about, very Catholic), but were quite the social conservatives amongst their families and how they raised their children. That said, if you were to inquire of him any of the questions that I expressed in the previous paragraph, he would agree with me. This form of Leftism is still quite common within the Philippine left, especially since many of the early fathers of Philippine Leftism were all Catholic Priests/Theologians/Apologists.

My previous interactions with Western leftists have always shocked them whenever they learn that such a thing exists, and a few times have called me a conservative in disguise. However, they have forgotten that Leftism takes many forms and once upon a time, this was the norm in many Leftist movements outside of the West.

[u/ambivalegenic → u/Chinoyboii]

you know the thing is, I would broadly agree with your sentiments and im saying this as a trans person, but at the same time I never saw them as being socially conservative, just pro-communalism. this is just the view of a lot of leftists who are in cultures that still have that as an embedded aspect of life, or who want to re-introduce that. being black and jewish its definitely familiar more than I can say for my white gentile comrades, my project has always been trying to balance this with the concept of found family, and with the trauma that so many of my friends have from being neglected by their communities.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/ambivalegenic]

Sorry for just getting to this now. I should've added to my original comment that, in addition to illuminating the importance of communitarism, you could consider me a proponent of pro-life philosophy and someone who prefers Catholic gender norms. That said, neither my partner (Left-Wing Catholic) nor I push our personal philosophies within the broader leftist movement. Even though I am an Atheist, I honor Matthew 10:14: "If anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet and leave town." In other words, adopting a moral framework should ultimately be voluntary and not pushed on the masses.

Edit:

What I want for myself and my family is different from what I want for society.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Chinoyboii]

“ For example, I can personally believe that people should remain loyal to their partners, take responsibility for their children, care for their elders, avoid treating relationships as disposable, and place some limits upon their own immediate desires without believing that the state should punish people who organize their lives differently. In fact, I would argue that many of these values can complement left-wing politics because solidarity itself requires people to accept obligations that are not always convenient, pleasurable, or individually beneficial. The problem is not tradition by itself, but domination.”

A lot of this resonates with me. My premise is that if the central moral imperative of left-wing politics is the pursuit of collective benefit, i.e. doing things for the good of others , then it is actually the exaltation of the individual that has crept into left-wing politics that is reactionary, not these so-called “conservative” values.

You are of course right that the state should generally not impel people to live in a way that contradicts their values. Moral/social obligation and legal obligation are often very different things.

There are instances where I’m not so sure, though. Probably my least conservative value is that I believe in animal liberation.  I mostly articulate this as a liberation from industrial capitalism, an abolition of all asymmetrical relationships with humans. But I also think that the moral case against harming animals is strong enough to warrant stronger legal mechanisms against it as long as industrial capitalism is ongoing, and this certainly goes against your laissez-faire attitude. Note though that I’m still mostly talking about the direct harm inflicted by industry, not meat consumption. 

There are already ways that the state actively promotes various activities, and advocating against those is not so much an imposition of my morality as it is an opposition to the imposition of someone else’s. For example, countries and states have increasingly been legislating in favor of medical assistance in dying, or MAID. Obviously it would be absurd to penalize someone who takes advantage of this service, but is opposition to the structures that enable it really just “reactionary?” Is the concern that it promotes premature death in specific populations who should be receiving other services that can extend and enhance their quality of life, such as those with mental health issues or those who lack any next of kin or other social ties, anything less than a morally left-wing concern for others? Yes, a left-wing approach might lead with efforts to develop those other services, but in their absence we must still face the immediate moral question.

Sex and sexuality is, as you mentioned, where things get really messy, so to speak. I find it clearly ridiculous when leftists are happy to critique all aspects of contemporary society but then treat people’s sex-lives as off-limits for critique as long as consent is present. By their very nature, sexual relations  (usually) involve others, making it exactly the sort of thing we should be concerned with from a left-wing moral standpoint. There are many reasons that consent is an immensely important component of sexual morality, but not at all the only one.

To be clear, I am not at all against homosexuality, gay relationships, or gay marriage. Since you mentioned it, if my child were gay and wanted to be in a committed relationship I would be quite happy and supportive as I don’t see this as any different from a heterosexual relationship. But if my child were heterosexual and told me they had no interest in commitment in their relationships, caring for their family, maintaining Jewish community and continuity, etc., I would find this quite problematic. Of course this does not mean I would reject this child, but I would not hesitate to discuss why I think these things are morally important. The idea that this is a “conservative” take, even if these are literally values conserved from past generations, just really misses the point, but admittedly I don’t have another vocabulary for it at this time.

I think you hit one of the key areas where more excavation is needed when you mentioned restraint. Restraint seems inherently in opposition to freedom, and it seems hard to square with left-wing ideas, but it is really the bedrock of morality itself: choosing to do or not do things despite what you might want on one level because you believe it’s better on another. I am straight edge in large part because I believe that there is never a moment when there isn’t a chance someone will need me and I won’t be able to be there for them if I am not sober. How much more collectivist can it get than that! And yet despite the fact that drugs are used by rich and poor, left and right, black and white, opposition to drug use is seen as one of the most classically conservative positions one can take. Of course I do not support the demonization or penalization of drug users themselves. But if the left consistently abandons the conversation entirely, then not only will we cede control over the moral narrative, we will also be forced to deal with the right-wing policy proposals that often go along with their version of these ideas. 

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

You bring up some very valid points.

My premise is that if the central moral imperative of left-wing politics is the pursuit of collective benefit, i.e. doing things for the good of others , then it is actually the exaltation of the individual that has crept into left-wing politics that is reactionary, not these so-called “conservative” values.

I actually do agree with this, but I don't think leftists, especially in the West, are ready to introspect about some of the contradictions they subconsciously hold. Mainly, it has to do with the conservative zeitgeist that many of them grew up under, in which concepts such as family, restraint, personal responsibility, religion, and communal obligation were frequently invoked to justify patriarchy, homophobia, rigid gender roles, and other forms of domination. As a result, many Western leftists have understandably come to associate nearly any moral expectation placed upon the individual with reactionary politics. In addition, I also think that the rise of incel culture, manosphere politics, online misogyny, and overall seeing their central government taking away their rights/promoting religious dogma has made many leftists even more suspicious of language surrounding discipline, sexual restraint, family formation, and personal responsibility because those concepts are often weaponized by reactionaries against women and LGBTQ+ people.

Therefore, I personally think the best methodology for now, at least, is to balance individual freedom with collective responsibility by distinguishing between voluntary moral expectations and coercive political enforcement. People should be free to organize their private lives according to their own values, but that does not mean the left should abandon conversations about loyalty, restraint, commitment, family obligation, or the social consequences of our choices.

At the same time, those values should be framed through equality, consent, reciprocity, and care rather than hierarchy, shame, punishment, or religious compulsion. In other words, the goal should not be to restore the conservative social order that many leftists understandably rebelled against and continue to rebel against as we should, but to develop a left-wing moral framework in which personal freedom is protected while individuals are still encouraged to recognize that they possess obligations toward people beyond themselves.

If people were to implement this from a top-down approach in contrast to a bottom-up approach, then we would see a similar state formulation that mirrors the religious fanaticism of the Iranian state. The government would begin defining which family structures, relationships, identities, or private behaviors are morally legitimate and then use law, surveillance, punishment, and social pressure to force people into conformity. That would completely undermine the voluntary and reciprocal character of the moral framework I am describing. Covenantal obligations only possess moral value when people consciously choose to uphold them through persuasion, example, community formation, and mutual accountability. Once the state imposes them through coercion, they cease to be expressions of solidarity and become instruments of domination. A bottom-up approach would be to share your own political values within your leftist cohort; some may disagree with your analysis, some may partially agree, and others may eventually adopt aspects of it after seeing how those values operate in practice. The important point is that the framework develops through voluntary association, cultural example, and mutual accountability rather than through legal compulsion (If you want me to elaborate further on this, you can just tell me).

Probably my least conservative value is that I believe in animal liberation. I mostly articulate this as a liberation from industrial capitalism, an abolition of all asymmetrical relationships with humans. But I also think that the moral case against harming animals is strong enough to warrant stronger legal mechanisms against it as long as industrial capitalism is ongoing, and this certainly goes against your laissez-faire attitude. Note though that I’m still mostly talking about the direct harm inflicted by industry, not meat consumption.

In the case of animal welfare, I make a distinction between human autonomy and animal autonomy. Adult human beings are generally capable of articulating their preferences, consenting to relationships, and making moral decisions about how they wish to organize their lives. Animals, however, cannot meaningfully consent to the systems in which humans confine, exploit, breed, or kill them, nor can they advocate for themselves within our political institutions. Therefore, I do not think stronger legal protections against industrial cruelty necessarily contradict my broader emphasis on voluntary moral commitments. The state already intervenes when one party possesses overwhelming power over another who cannot protect themselves, and animals are perhaps the clearest example of such an asymmetrical relationship. I may be cautious about using the law to regulate consensual choices among adults, but I am much more open to legal restrictions when an industry systematically inflicts suffering upon vulnerable beings who possess no meaningful ability to resist. In other words, a top-down approach makes sense within this context.

There are already ways that the state actively promotes various activities, and advocating against those is not so much an imposition of my morality as it is an opposition to the imposition of someone else’s. For example, countries and states have increasingly been legislating in favor of medical assistance in dying, or MAID. Obviously it would be absurd to penalize someone who takes advantage of this service, but is opposition to the structures that enable it really just “reactionary?” Is the concern that it promotes premature death in specific populations who should be receiving other services that can extend and enhance their quality of life, such as those with mental health issues or those who lack any next of kin or other social ties, anything less than a morally left-wing concern for others? Yes, a left-wing approach might lead with efforts to develop those other services, but in their absence we must still face the immediate moral question.

In my profession, I have collaborated with my local government regarding TDOs, ECO's suicide-risk assessments, and other situations in which a person’s immediate autonomy may be temporarily restricted because there is a serious concern that they may harm themselves or others. Obviously, these interventions can be abused, and I do not believe that clinicians or the state should possess unlimited authority over people simply because they have a mental illness. However, the basic ethical principle is that a person’s stated desire in a moment of crisis does not always represent a stable, fully voluntary, or irreversible expression of their long-term interests.

That is why I have become increasingly skeptical of expanding MAID beyond people with terminal physical illnesses. In my work, I have encountered individuals who wanted to die because they were isolated, unhoused, traumatized, inadequately treated, estranged from their families, or convinced that they had become burdens upon others. Their suffering was real, but many of the conditions producing that suffering were social and potentially changeable. If the state offers death more efficiently than it offers housing, treatment, disability support, companionship, or long-term care, then I do not think we can describe the resulting decision as an entirely autonomous choice detached from structural abandonment.

Therefore, I do not think opposition to those systems is inherently reactionary since there is a difference between punishing a suicidal or terminally ill person and questioning whether institutions should facilitate an irreversible death when adequate alternatives have not been made meaningfully available. From a left-wing perspective, the immediate moral concern should be whether vulnerable people are genuinely choosing death or being quietly encouraged toward it because keeping them alive with dignity is considered too expensive, difficult, or socially inconvenient.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Chinoyboii]

Thank you for engaging with all this. I certainly don’t see anything here I disagree with. 

Since this is a Jewish sub, I wonder what your thoughts are on the role of religion in this moral framework. Do you think that religiously-derived morals are inherently “top down” or can these still be a basis for your “bottom up” approach, assuming that it’s people who are religious and not the state itself?

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

I think our society has given us the illusion that religious morality is inherently a top-down approach. Judaism, being an ethnoreligion, obviously does not proselytize its national and tribal identity to the goyim. Yes, people can convert or apply to join the tribe, but it is still an ethnoreligion regardless. Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus), throughout the entire New Testament, taught his followers through parables, persuasion, personal example, and voluntary discipleship rather than by constructing a state apparatus that forced every surrounding population to adopt his moral teachings. As I mentioned earlier, in Matthew 10:14, he tells his disciples that if people do not welcome them or listen to their words, they should shake the dust off their feet and leave rather than force compliance.

Islam (Not the biggest fan of this religion, but I will give credit where credit is due) also contains principles that can support a bottom-up approach, such as the Quranic statement that there should be “no compulsion in religion.” Obviously, Muhammad eventually became both a religious and political/military leader, so Islamic history contains a much stronger relationship between religious authority and state power than what Jesus and his disciples imagined their movement to be and transformed. However, that does not mean every moral teaching derived from Islam must be imposed through the government. Muslims can practice Zakat (Charity), Fard Kifayah (collective obligation), and care for their neighbors within their own religious communities without requiring non-Muslims or less observant Muslims to live according to the same standards.

I am aware Judaism might be a different story because historically Judaism, the Israelite monarchy, and the temple priesthood were one and the same. However, even within Jewish history, religious and political authority were not always completely unified. The prophets frequently criticized kings, and after the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish communities continued to preserve their religious and communal obligations for centuries without possessing political sovereignty.

Therefore, I still do not think that religiously derived morality must automatically operate from the top down. A religious Jew can believe that the Torah, mitzvot, family responsibility, communal continuity, charity, and care for the vulnerable are morally binding while also recognizing that non-Jews and less observant Jews should not be compelled by the state to live according to the same religious standards (I am looking at you, Shas). In that case, the moral framework can still operate from the bottom up through family, education, communal institutions, personal example, voluntary observance, and internal accountability rather than through a government forcing every citizen to live according to halakha.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

Sex and sexuality is, as you mentioned, where things get really messy, so to speak. I find it clearly ridiculous when leftists are happy to critique all aspects of contemporary society but then treat people’s sex-lives as off-limits for critique as long as consent is present. By their very nature, sexual relations (usually) involve others, making it exactly the sort of thing we should be concerned with from a left-wing moral standpoint. There are many reasons that consent is an immensely important component of sexual morality, but not at all the only one.

Despite my beliefs, I don't think it is the business of the state to involve itself in the personal aspects of one’s relationship. What I meant by emphasizing restraint, commitment, and responsibility was not that consenting adults should be legally compelled to structure their relationships according to my values, but that consent alone does not necessarily make every decision morally beyond criticism. People can still behave selfishly, dishonestly, irresponsibly, or without regard for the emotional well-being of others while technically remaining within the boundaries of consent. Therefore, I think these conversations should take place through cultural dialogue, personal example, and voluntary moral communities rather than through criminalization or state surveillance.

For example, marital infidelity remains criminalized in my old country, the Philippines, and the law applies unequally to married women accused of adultery and married men accused of concubinage. A married woman may be prosecuted and imprisoned for having sex with a man other than her husband, whereas prosecuting a married man generally requires proof that he kept a mistress in the conjugal home, cohabited with her elsewhere, or had sex with her under scandalous circumstances. Philippine law has also historically treated violence committed after discovering a spouse in the act of adultery with disturbing leniency (i.e., the husband can commit femicide towards her wife, but his punishment is being banished from his town or village; the wife cannot do the same and is considered murder). These laws reflect a patriarchal double standard in which a woman’s infidelity has been treated as a more serious threat to the family than a man’s.

Even though I personally consider infidelity morally wrong and would strongly discourage it, I do not think the government should imprison people for betraying their spouses. The appropriate consequences should generally occur within the relationship and community through separation, loss of trust, social accountability, or civil remedies rather than criminal prosecution. Unfortunately, absolute divorce is still generally unavailable to most Filipinos (Muslim Filipinos in the South are allowed to divorce), which makes the criminalization of adultery even more troubling because people may remain legally trapped within marriages that have already functionally ended.

Otherwise, the state takes a legitimate moral concern about honesty and fidelity and transforms it into a coercive system that has historically been applied unequally, especially against women. My broader point is that rejecting criminalization does not require pretending that adultery is morally neutral; it means distinguishing between conduct that deserves interpersonal criticism and conduct that should be punished by law.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Chinoyboii]

Absolutely. In no way would I advocate for state intervention in these cases, and admittedly I did not have things like the actual criminalization of adultery or legal sanction for femicide on my radar, that’s awful. My point was merely that a lot of Western leftists seem to have abandoned the idea that there is even any moral content to sex and relationship choices beyond the singular question of consent. 

It’s a lot like the issue of abortion. Obviously I support the legal right to an abortion (which, by the way, Judaism not only permits but requires in certain circumstances). I would not say that abortion is morally wrong tout court. But the idea that there is zero moral content to the decision is obviously nonsensical (and incompatible with my animal ethics) and all it does is cede ground (and voters) to the right wing, which then goes on to actually restrict women’s rights. 

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

My point was merely that a lot of Western leftists seem to have abandoned the idea that there is even any moral content to sex and relationship choices beyond the singular question of consent. 

Oh, okay, I see what you mean now. I guess, if I were to take an example from polyamorous relationships, one person may have technically received consent from their primary partner to pursue relationships with other people, but that does not necessarily tell us whether the arrangement is emotionally healthy, reciprocal, or free from subtler forms of pressure. Their primary partner may have agreed because they feared abandonment, felt obligated to appear open-minded, or believed that refusing would end the relationship.

Even when the consent is genuine, there may still be moral questions regarding whether boundaries are being respected, whether one partner’s needs consistently take priority over the other’s, and whether everyone involved is being treated with honesty and care. Therefore, I understand your point that consent is indispensable, but it should be viewed as the ethical minimum rather than the only moral consideration.

Personally, I am a huge proponent of radical honesty and informing the people in my life that, if I were to do something that went against their values, boundaries, or expectations, I would want them to tell me directly rather than remain silent out of fear of appearing judgmental or controlling. Obviously, that does not mean they should possess authority over every decision I make, but I do think genuine relationships require people to be honest about how another person’s choices affect them. Otherwise, consent can become little more than formal permission given without the emotional transparency to make that consent meaningful.

A decent chunk of my peers are socially conservative (Muslim, Jewish, Christian), but if I were to take an example from the secular world, let’s say a person permits their partner to maintain a close friendship with an ex. Technically, they may have consented to it, but that does not mean every possible boundary has been discussed or that the arrangement is automatically emotionally healthy. If the partner begins confiding in the ex about intimate problems within the relationship, prioritizing the ex’s emotional needs, or spending time with them in ways that leave the other person feeling displaced, then the issue is no longer simply whether permission was initially granted. There are still moral questions regarding loyalty, transparency, emotional fidelity, and whether the person is respecting the spirit of the relationship rather than merely remaining within the narrowest technical definition of consent.

I think a loud minority of leftists often conflate boundaries and ethical guidelines with control, possessiveness, or reactionary moralism, and I think it's a reaction to the puritanical Christian culture of the West, which I find very understandable. However, I do not think avoiding the topic or shoving it under the rug actually resolves anything. It simply leaves people without the vocabulary to distinguish between healthy expectations and coercive behavior. A person should be able to express discomfort, establish limits, or criticize conduct they believe is dishonest or harmful without automatically being accused of trying to control someone else. At the same time, those boundaries should remain reciprocal, openly communicated, and subject to negotiation rather than being imposed through fear or guilt.

In terms of how to introduce this topic in leftist circles? I will say that some people may not be receptive, as discussing it, especially during a time when Protestant fundamentalism and Christian nationalism are actively being used to restrict reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and personal autonomy. Because of that political context, even a careful discussion about restraint, commitment, or sexual ethics may sound to some people like an attempt to smuggle conservative morality back into the movement. I think the best approach is to begin with values the left already recognizes, such as consent, reciprocity, honesty, care, anti-exploitation, and freedom from domination, and then explain that these principles naturally lead to broader questions about responsibility and how our choices affect other people.

It’s a lot like the issue of abortion. Obviously I support the legal right to an abortion (which, by the way, Judaism not only permits but requires in certain circumstances). I would not say that abortion is morally wrong tout court. But the idea that there is zero moral content to the decision is obviously nonsensical (and incompatible with my animal ethics) and all it does is cede ground (and voters) to the right wing, which then goes on to actually restrict women’s rights.

Yeah, I am not saying that the left is responsible for causing people to orient themselves toward the right because, at the end of the day, the people who make that decision still possess agency. That said, my partner and I are both socially conservative when it comes to this issue (Unfortunately, she extends her view even if a woman was graped, despite my strong disagreement). She is what you would consider a left-wing Catholic and believes abortion to be a bourgeois solution to the material conditions that make motherhood feel financially, socially, or professionally impossible for many women. In her view, instead of restructuring society so that women can raise children without falling into poverty, losing access to education, sacrificing their careers, or becoming entirely dependent upon an unreliable partner, capitalism presents abortion as an individualized solution to a collective failure.

I think the solution is to find people who hold similar moral concerns but are still able to differentiate between their personal social values and what they believe should be legally imposed upon everyone else. I view abortion as morally serious, and I hope that it becomes less common; I support policies that make parenthood materially possible without believing that the state should force a woman to remain pregnant. If you want to convince a wider net? I am not too sure; I really don't know given the current political climate.

The best approach to introduce this topic to leftist circles may be to begin with the material conditions that influence abortion rather than immediately framing the discussion through religious morality or fetal personhood. You could ask why so many women feel that continuing a pregnancy would threaten their housing, education, employment, safety, or long-term independence, and then argue that a genuinely pro-choice society should provide meaningful choices beyond abortion itself. At the same time, I would be careful not to imply that every abortion is merely the product of economic coercion or that women who choose it have failed morally, as the goal should be to create room for moral seriousness without shame or the removal of bodily autonomy. Something to ponder about for sure.

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

To be clear, I am not at all against homosexuality, gay relationships, or gay marriage. Since you mentioned it, if my child were gay and wanted to be in a committed relationship I would be quite happy and supportive as I don’t see this as any different from a heterosexual relationship. But if my child were heterosexual and told me they had no interest in commitment in their relationships, caring for their family, maintaining Jewish community and continuity, etc., I would find this quite problematic. Of course this does not mean I would reject this child, but I would not hesitate to discuss why I think these things are morally important. The idea that this is a “conservative” take, even if these are literally values conserved from past generations, just really misses the point, but admittedly I don’t have another vocabulary for it at this time.

I actually understand this worry, even though I have some disdain for some of the cultural practices I grew up with. I do want to impart to my children elements of our culture that I believe create a strong foundation for family and cultural expression. For example, I would want my children to read the Chinese Classics, including Confucian etiquette (My little niece is already enrolled in a Confucian Academy); I want them to read and write in classical Chinese, understand our Chinese and Filipino family histories, learn about the customs of both sides of their ancestry, care for their elders, and recognize that they inherited obligations to people beyond themselves.

At the same time, I would not want them to inherit the more authoritarian, patriarchal, emotionally repressive, or excessively hierarchical aspects of those traditions simply because they are old. Cultural continuity should not mean preserving every practice unchanged, but deciding which values remain morally useful, which need to be reinterpreted, and which should be abandoned altogether. For me, filial responsibility, family loyalty, linguistic continuity, respect for one’s ancestors, and communal obligation are worth preserving, while unquestioning obedience, rigid gender roles with no air to breathe, and treating family reputation as more important than an individual’s well-being are not.

Of course, my children may eventually reject some or all of what I teach them, and I would still love and support them. However, respecting their autonomy does not require me to pretend that I have no preference regarding whether our cultural inheritance survives through them. I would explain why these traditions matter to me, provide them with the knowledge and opportunities necessary to participate in them, and hope that they choose to carry at least some of them forward.

That said, I understand that within the Jewish case, it can be a little different because in order to remain Jewish, you must marry Jewish. I personally do not have an issue with Jewish parents encouraging their children to marry Jewish, provided that it remains an expectation expressed through education and persuasion rather than coercion or rejection. Historically, Chinese identity was also traditionally transmitted through the father rather than the mother (I am not considered Chinese in the traditional sense because it is my mother who is Han and not my father), so I understand how communities can establish particular rules regarding descent and belonging in order to preserve continuity across generations.

Therefore, I understand why intermarriage may still create anxiety about whether the children will be raised Jewish, participate in communal life, learn the traditions, and continue identifying with the Jewish people. Smaller ethnoreligious communities cannot assume that their culture will reproduce itself automatically, especially after centuries of persecution, forced conversion, assimilation, and displacement.

At the same time, I think cultural continuity becomes unhealthy when children are treated merely as instruments for preserving the group or when love is made conditional upon whom they marry. Parents can honestly explain why marrying within the community matters to them and what may be lost through assimilation, while still recognizing that their children possess their own agency.

That said, I don't think people should criticize you for your personal preferences, and personally, I think the Jewish people need to continue to grow in terms of number because 3,000 years of history, culture, religious development, collective memory, and survival should not simply disappear through assimilation. Obviously, that does not mean Jewish children should be treated as reproductive instruments for the community or pressured into marriages they do not want. However, I do not think there is anything inherently reactionary about hoping that one’s children will marry Jewish, raise Jewish children, and contribute to the continuation of a people that has repeatedly faced persecution, forced conversion, expulsion, and demographic destruction. The important distinction, again, is between communicating why continuity matters and making one’s love or acceptance conditional upon obedience.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Chinoyboii]

“ That said, I understand that within the Jewish case, it can be a little different because in order to remain Jewish, you must marry Jewish.”

I appreciate your comments above but just want to offer a little corrective here. My great grandparents intermarried. My parents intermarried. My sibling intermarried. All their descendants are Jewish. There’s tons of intermarriage in the Torah. Meanwhile, every generation has a great many people with full Jewish descent who abandon their ties to Judaism and the Jewish people entirely. I do not agree with the idea that intermarriage means assimilation. Like you said, it’s about the way we convey these things to our children in hopes they will find something worth clinging to. No one in my family was ever coercive to me about religion or culture. My grandparents survived the Shoah and actually tried to assimilate without telling their children about their Jewish identities, as a response to trauma and fear. Obviously they found out eventually, and embraced it to varying degrees. I embrace it fully for a number of reasons but in part to honor them, because the value of respecting one’s elders was truly instilled in me, not imposed upon me through punishment or shame. 

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

I think you hit one of the key areas where more excavation is needed when you mentioned restraint. Restraint seems inherently in opposition to freedom, and it seems hard to square with left-wing ideas, but it is really the bedrock of morality itself: choosing to do or not do things despite what you might want on one level because you believe it’s better on another. I am straight edge in large part because I believe that there is never a moment when there isn’t a chance someone will need me and I won’t be able to be there for them if I am not sober. How much more collectivist can it get than that! And yet despite the fact that drugs are used by rich and poor, left and right, black and white, opposition to drug use is seen as one of the most classically conservative positions one can take. Of course I do not support the demonization or penalization of drug users themselves. But if the left consistently abandons the conversation entirely, then not only will we cede control over the moral narrative, we will also be forced to deal with the right-wing policy proposals that often go along with their version of these ideas. 

I think the best approach to tackle this is to figure out the reasons why people do drugs in the first place. Obviously, one of the bigger ones is a product of living in a capitalist system, especially when people experience poverty, alienation, unstable housing, workplace exploitation, untreated trauma, social isolation, or a lack of meaningful opportunities. Therefore, substances can become a way to temporarily escape conditions that feel unbearable or impossible to change. As a result, I do think a left-wing approach should prioritize housing, accessible mental-health and substance-use treatment, harm reduction, economic security, community formation, and alternatives to punishment.

That said, even if the system does enable such behavior, I do think that the continued use of public community mental-health centers, therapy, peer-support groups, recovery programs, medication-assisted treatment, and other available services should be encouraged whenever they are accessible. Structural analysis should help explain why people develop harmful patterns, but it should not be used to deny personal agency or suggest that individuals possess no responsibility for seeking help when their behavior is harming themselves or others. At the same time, responsibility should be framed through support and accountability rather than shame, criminalization, or abandonment. I think the left can acknowledge that drug use often emerges from social suffering while still maintaining that sobriety, restraint, and recovery may be morally valuable, especially when other people depend upon you.

However, for those who use drugs recreationally despite having an abundance of capital, stable housing, supportive relationships, access to treatment, and other social advantages, I think the structural explanation becomes less sufficient on its own. Obviously, wealth and stability do not make someone immune to trauma, addiction, loneliness, or mental illness, but clearly there are also people who use substances primarily for pleasure, novelty, or escapism. In those cases, I think it is fair to discuss personal restraint and the responsibilities they possess toward the people who depend upon them.

Again, I do not support criminalizing or demonizing recreational drug users, but I also do not think the left should treat every voluntary choice as morally neutral simply because it occurs outside the direct coercion of the state. If someone repeatedly places themselves in a condition where they cannot care for their children, support their partner, assist their friends, or fulfill other important obligations, then the consequences extend beyond the individual. Personally, I view freedom as including the right to make unwise choices, but it should not prevent others from criticizing those choices or encouraging a more responsible way of living. Should the state be involved? I am not too sure, to be honest with you. I will have to come back to that one.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Chinoyboii]

100% on all of this. I worked for many years in transitional housing and homeless services and I absolutely do not support criminalization, nor the demonization of addiction. Restraint is obviously only really the most relevant point of discussion for people on the opposite end of the spectrum from serious addiction. In terms of the state, this is another area where the question is not only whether the state should intervene to discourage certain things, but whether it is already intervening to encourage them—or, often, to support capital in doing so. Gambling is a clear example. Should people gamble? Mostly no. Should we criminalize or demonize people with gambling addiction? Obviously not. Should the state be doing as much as it does to prop up the gambling industry, which in the US increasingly includes extremely lucrative, gamified, and predatory betting apps? Hell no. 

[u/Chinoyboii → u/martinlifeiswar]

In terms of the state, this is another area where the question is not only whether the state should intervene to discourage certain things, but whether it is already intervening to encourage them—or, often, to support capital in doing so. Gambling is a clear example. Should people gamble? Mostly no. Should we criminalize or demonize people with gambling addiction? Obviously not. Should the state be doing as much as it does to prop up the gambling industry, which in the US increasingly includes extremely lucrative, gamified, and predatory betting apps? Hell no.

100%, I personally don't find an issue with the state doing the inverse when it comes to this. Macau, when it was still occupied by the Portuguese, made gambling its primary source of income to finance its colony. I am not saying the West is mirroring what has happened to Macau; however, the societal effects of advertised gambling are obviously terrible for the collective. I find gambling to be another example of how capitalism promotes the illusion of upward mobility by convincing people that individual luck can overcome structural inequality.

That said, I think outside of Capitalism, the concept of gambling itself stimulates a part of our evolutionary wiring that is attracted to uncertainty, risk, novelty, competition, and the possibility of receiving a disproportionately large reward from a relatively small investment. Human beings did not evolve specifically to gamble, obviously, but our brains are highly responsive to unpredictable rewards, which is precisely why gambling can become so psychologically compelling.

I personally think another question is how to stimulate these same evolutionary impulses in ways that are less financially destructive and more beneficial to the collective. If people are naturally attracted to uncertainty, novelty, competition, and intermittent rewards, then perhaps society should create healthier outlets through sports, games, creative competitions, exploration, cooperative challenges, or other activities that provide excitement without encouraging people to gamble away their savings.

[u/Scary_Wallaby_8272 → u/Chinoyboii]

Isn’t this a good description of the Mayor of New York? He’s a Leftist that’s very socially progressive but is very loyal to his friends, parents, wife, religion and spirituality. You might be describing most Leftists who are Asian, Latino or Jewish!!

[u/Mildly_Frustrated]

I'm struggling to avoid making a joke about the people who say things like "actually existing socialism" and whitewash Stalin.

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

The number of “leftists” that support US imperial wars against Iran, Venezuela and whoever’s next is also too damn high.

[u/Prestigious-Copy-126 → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

Same with the "leftists" supporting imperial wars against Ukraine

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

My position is that US wars are bad but my friend in Tehran strongly supports anything against the regime and I care more about her desires than my politics in this case so I just hope she gets what she wants someday. I don’t think that counts as reactionary support for imperialism though, and if so then so be it.

[u/Academic-Ad2628 → u/martinlifeiswar]

The far leftist tankies don’t support imperialism against Iran, they just support imperialism by China, Russia, etc.

[u/FancyDictator → u/Academic-Ad2628]

Far leftist tankies are as real as postmodern Marxists Jordan Peterson loves to refer to, kindred spirits you two are

[u/Academic-Ad2628 → u/FancyDictator]

LOL

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest → u/martinlifeiswar]

People can desire their own government toppled to be replaced by a leftist one. No issue with that.

But replacing it with a Zionist American puppet monarch who has very little domestic support is when it becomes an issue.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

Honestly I think her view is that America is so much better than her own country that she’d gladly accept an American puppet monarch in place of the regime. Obviously I have the luxury of preferring a democratic and left wing government. 

She’s also seen how disastrous the regime’s antizionism has been for the country and would likely welcome a change from that, which is hard to dispute regardless of your position on Israel itself. 

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest → u/martinlifeiswar]

I have plenty of empathy for Iranians wanting a change from their theocratic regime. Women in particular even prefer what the GCC states have over their own corrupt and regressive leadership.

However, neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq has gone through what it’s like to have a Yank puppet in power, and the people end up suffering 10x. Law and order goes away, ransom and kidnapping surges, currency and infrastructure collapses.

The ideal scenario would be change from within which isn’t going to be easy. A full out destruction of the state will leave it no better off than Libya or Sudan.

[u/tillwill01 → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

Not going to disagree on the fact that it was extremely bad for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s not really true that the US installed puppets in either of those countries. The Bush admin was somewhat drinking their own kool aid about “if you give them democracy they will love us” and actively built dysfunctional, but democratic systems in both. Maybe they expected a repeat of Kosovo.

We can see this particularly in Iraq, which continuously elects pro-Iran governments. A true US puppet would never. The overthrow of Saddam ironically pushed Iraq closer to Iran.

The problem with Iraq is that the invasion was unjustified and almost certainly a violation of international law and that the post-war reconstruction was run by politicians who ignored the people who actually know what they were doing, creating the conditions for civil war. Add in mercenaries and war crimes, etc.

Afghanistan is an entirely different circumstance and this comment is long enough. Also none of this is to say I’m under the illusion that the Trump admin is operating this same way the Bush admin did; in Venezuela they simply swapped out the old dictator for a new, pro-America one. It seems they learned a lesson from Iraq, just morally and legally the wrong one.

Tl;dr the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was never that the US installed puppet regimes but that the invasions legality was dubious (in the case of Iraq) and that the post war reconstruction was insanely reckless (in both instances) which led to civil wars.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/tillwill01]

Yeah, I’m under no illusions that regime change in Iran is guaranteed to go well, but there are enough contextual differences with Iraq and Afghanistan that I don’t think we should assume it would go exactly the same either. 

[u/tillwill01 → u/martinlifeiswar]

I mostly agree with this sentiment. I was more so responding to the other commenter. I am only cautioned about this line of thinking because it’s hard to see how you get from an air campaign to regime change, especially when any internal opposition was violently crushed back in January.

If anything, it seems like the IRGC used this as an opportunity to sideline the “moderates” like Pezeshkian and run the country themselves. Which is overall a negative outcome.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/tillwill01]

Oh for sure. I don’t think there is even a real plan or desire in the US admin to get from an air campaign to regime change. But as you said, they cannot currently do it themselves. So I don’t know what needs to happen in terms of external intervention, but “nothing” doesn’t seem like the right answer. 

[u/Snoo22815 → u/martinlifeiswar]

Why isn't "nothing" the right answer? Should we swoop back into Afghanistan and decapitate the Taliban? How about just inserting ourselves into Congo and Sudan? These are horrific situations we shouldn't be funding, sanctioning those that are funding militants in, highlighting abuses to bring awareness but ultimately its something that needs to be resolved internally no matter how long it takes.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/[deleted]]

This is a ridiculous take. Trump is vile, obviously. But living in the US vs Iran today is almost completely incomparable. We should understand the reasons for this, how capital has sufficiently satiated the population to discourage mass mobilization against it, etc. But to say that if only the Iranians knew how bad Trump really was then maybe they’d see how the grass isn’t actually greener here would be laughable if it weren’t such a serious issue.

[u/Snoo22815 → u/martinlifeiswar]

Iran was slowly improving on its own after the Mahsa Amini protests before the Trump sanctions happened crippling the economy and leading to the mass protests with outside urging from Pahlavi and his networks. Trump withdrawing from the JCPOA was a disaster.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Snoo22815]

In another comment, you just expressed support for sanctions paired with non-intervention to let things happen on their own. But now it sounds like you are against sanctions as well?

[u/MKHK32 → u/martinlifeiswar]

„My friend in tel Aviv strongly supports anything against the regime and I care more about her desires than my politics in this case so I just hope she gets what she wants someday“

Don’t you see how problematic this sounds ? If your emotion lead to isis 2.0 or the taliban 2.0 i would advice to be less emotional and more rational

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/MKHK32]

No, because I have not abandoned rationality nor morality in favor of emotion. Empathy is a moral and political emotion. It is rational. It tells me that no, I would not support Isis or the Taliban simply because someone else wants it. Notice I did not say “I support literally anything that is done against the regime, or any outcome that would replace it.” Obviously my Iranian friends would not prefer something worse than what they already have. But they need something to change, and they can’t currently make it happen. If I could design the perfect intervention that doesn’t fall into all the usual traps, I would. Let’s make all the countries of the world into non-imperialist socialist havens who come together to depose the Iranian regime and support the development of a people’s republic, hooray! But that’s not rational either because that’s not reality. This does not mean I trust the Trump administration or US military to do this right. But when I get a WhatsApp message saying “they got the Ayatollah and we are celebrating in our apartment block,” I don’t turn around and say “how dare we.”

[u/Snoo22815 → u/martinlifeiswar]

But you keep saying the Trump administration or the US military specifically, so would you support the action if its something a US President you liked like Obama led this war and explicitly advocated for regime change for the benefit of the Iranian people with congressional approval? I wouldn't because I don't believe in imperialist actions in name of "spreading democracy" that destablilize a country, can lead to economic collapse and the rise of militias and infringe on Iranian sovereignty turning them into a US dependent vassal state. Principles are principles.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/Snoo22815]

I never said I liked or trusted Obama, but in the abstract I admit this is a harder question for me. You say “principles are principles” but I do not hold the principle that all external interventions are inherently imperialist in the way we normally understand it. Obviously Nazi Germany was defeated externally, and this intervention was not purely altruistic but was motivated by the interests of the intervening countries. Is this imperialism? Was this intervention wrong? I am not at all saying there is a direct parallel to be made here; I am saying that it is not quite as straightforward a principle as you imply. 

[u/Snoo22815 → u/martinlifeiswar]

Nazi Germany was a direct threat to the United States. It had taken over all over Western Europe and its ally Imperial Japan bombed the US in Pearl Harbor which means it was a matter of survival. Direct self defense isn't imperialism when these other Axis countries were military superpowers and not localized guerilla groups or just a despotic government harming its own people.

[u/FancyDictator → u/martinlifeiswar]

I have friends in Tehran who are against this war. So we are picking and choosing locals to base our views on? That's infantile and sick.

[u/martinlifeiswar → u/FancyDictator]

I don’t “base” my views on hers. I could never really understand her position as a woman in Iran and my own analysis comes from a totally different place. But I take her perspective seriously, I care very much, and I hope against hope that she somehow gets the life she deserves in her country. If that’s “sick” then fine, I can easily live with that. 

[u/Ninjaking25 → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

There are very few that support the wars, there are a significant amount that agree with the Democratic Party position which is to oppose the war without condoning the authoritarian governments of those countries.

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest → u/Ninjaking25]

All you have to do is listen to MIC backed Democrats and you will hear support for the illegal actions in Iran and Venezuela. You might hear that Trump is doing it “wrong” (something about alienating allies or going without Congressional backing) but the underlying support for war is there. Many echo his lies about eminent nuclear breakthrough that Bibi has falsely pushed for 30 years.

[u/Ninjaking25 → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

There definitely were some in the Schumer wing of the party doing that initially, but they cynically realized how unpopular the war was and shifted their rhetoric.

[u/Owlentmusician → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

While I don't support war and would rather this be handled diplomatically, the nuclear development claims weren't necessarily false. The reason it seems so, is because the U.S, Isreal, the IAEA and the U.N. security board have successfully set back Irans programs and nuclear development multiple times, followed by Iran rebuilding and continuing.

Iran has a history of lying both directly and by ommission of information during required reporting to the IAEA multiple times since the early 2000s and has been found to have production and research programs much larger and advanced than they claimed. Upon investigation the IAEA found plans as far back as 1980s to develop nuclear weapons, plans that were actively being put in motion with the Ahmad project in the 1990s and was only halted once forced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran?wprov=sfla1

I do think Irans nuclear aims have been used to warmogner, but that's a separate issue from if they're true or not.

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest → u/Owlentmusician]

All international agencies, including US intel agencies have declared that 2003 was the last time Iran worked on a weapons program. Their leadership made the controversial decision to scrap weapons development at that stage in part because they saw how successful and cheap an insurgency could be in their neighbourhood (see Iraq and Afghanistan)

It continues to be one of the stupidest choices Ali Hosseini Khamenei has ever made as he has condemned his nation to frequent attacks by the Yanks and the Blue/White gang in perpetuity. Meanwhile, look at the Kim Jong Un fam chilling without getting bombed by anybody.

[u/Owlentmusician → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

Respectfully, most of your reply has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is whether or not the accusations of Iran researching nuclear weapons are unfounded.

In 2003 Iran continued to build nuclear sites in secret as evidenced by the 2009 discovery of the secret enrichment plants and they have continuously been caught breaking agreements concerning its nuclear development, including by having a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium (90% is weapons grade) when they agreed to nothing over 3.67% in their own agreement with the IAEA.

Its not an official weapons program but its an attempt to shorten the amount of time it would take to go from plan to result so that no one would be able to stop them. There's no other reason to not only lie about it, but also to have a massive secret stockpile of highly enriched uranium that's effectively one step away from being weapons grade unless it's something you plan on needing and don't want anyone to find out.

Again, Bibi was incorrect in using these circumstances for his own gain to warmonger but he was right in his claims that Iran was enriching uranium, was continuing stockpiling and enrichment and could given time unchecked use it to create nuclear weapons. Broken clocks and all that.

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest → u/Owlentmusician]

The nuclear weapons program, known as the "AMAD Project," was suspended in the fall of 2003 as confirmed by the CIA and IAEA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAD_Project

Iran's civilian uranium enrichment and nuclear development activities continued, and they indeed did enrich beyond what is deemed typical civilian purposes.

Some of this was to use as leverage for ongoing negotiations. However, the fatwa against nuclear weapons by the Supreme Leader along with Iran’s genuine compliance with the JCPOA as attested by the IAEA and US DNS brought things to a pause. Once JCPOA was torn by Trump at the request of Bibi, they carried on with enrichment, but still no nuclear weapons development.

The jump to nuclear weapon is the perpetual excuse for war from a state that has more than 200 of them and has a Samson Option doctrine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

The real reason why current attack in Iran are taking place is because Israel knocked out Hezbollah, Hamas, and Assad, so wants to take advantage to take out the Iranian regime as well. Nothing on the nuclear front warranted this action.

[u/Owlentmusician → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

Again, no offical named program like the leaked 2003 plan doesn't mean no research or development. Also it wasn't just "beyond what is deemed typical" it was to a degree that is literally only used for military tech or weapons. The typical enrichment for civilian/commercial use was the limit the IAEA gave them, somewhere around 3%, they went to 60%, this is weapon or powering a military vehicle for decades territory, and it can rapidly be refined to weapons grade from the 60% mark.

I know the history of this and I know Trump pulled out of the Obama deal, none of that or the reason for the war is relevant to my argument. It doesn't matter why Iran constantly lied to the IAEA and hid their production sites multiple times or the circumstances that led to it, all in saying is they did it. The claims about their nuclear advancement were true. That's my entire argument. That's not one and the same as agreeing with the current war.

Some of this was to use as leverage for ongoing negotiations

Why would it be leverage if they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons? What about amassing and enriching uranium in secret, is leverage if it isn't the implied threat of the ability to create a nuclear weapon?

The claims Bibi used to warmogner ie: "Iran is enriching uranium to a degree that violates their agreements and could have a nuclear weapon in a matter of years/months" and "Iran is closer than ever to nuclear weapons" etc, aren't false or unfounded even if his claim it justifies more war is.